From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 11-Apr-15 13:05, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >> On 11-Apr-15 11:25, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>> Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>> Incompetent maintenance.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, it's not. It's nothing to do with maintenance. It has to do   
   >>> with horizontal curves, and weight shifting in the passenger car.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> There are plenty of places in the Northeast where even empty trains   
   >> on tangent track have floors that are many inches off from the   
   >> proper horizontal _and_ vertical alignments.   
   >>   
   >> _That_ is incompetent track maintenance, and that is what Hancock   
   >> is complaining about.  Of course, rather than fix that   
   >> incompetency, he prefers to pay extra crew to operate traps and   
   >> bridge plates.   
   >   
   > Sigh.   
   >   
   > You always say things like this, Stephen. It doesn't make it true.   
      
   Then how is it _some_ operators are able to do it?  And, notably,   
   operators that are a lot more competent at other things, too.   
      
   It can be done.  I'm sure it costs a little more money, but it pales in   
   comparison to the cost of adding crew to every train.   
      
   >>> With reduced staffing, just one trap is used per car.   
   >>   
   >> With floor-height platforms (and proper maintenance), traps (and   
   >> bridge plates) are not needed at all.   
   >   
   > You know CSS&SB has gauntlet tracks and Metra Electric has dedicated   
   > suburban (commuter) mains? You're ignoring tons of extra expense.   
      
   So perhaps you should investigate standard 55cm platforms, which don't   
   conflict with freight trains, rather than high platforms.   
      
   They work great for CMTA, DCTA, NJT's River Line, and operators all over   
   Europe and elsewhere.   
      
   >>>> The difference in cost to maintain short vs high platforms is   
   >>>> negligible.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't agree, because we don't build platforms in this country   
   >>> English style, in which platforms are expected to last for   
   >>> centuries. So floor-height platforms are structures, not asphalt   
   >>> over deep grading for standard height platforms.   
   >>   
   >> Maybe they don't in Chicago, but they do around here.   
   >   
   > Fine. Give me a call 100 years from now and tell me how many   
   > original platforms survived.   
      
   Actually, our platforms are concrete topped with brick and/or tile, not   
   asphalt.  There are concrete sidewalks around town that are 100+ years   
   old, and we have much better materials now, so there's no reason to   
   think the platforms wouldn't last even longer.   
      
   That said, I doubt the original platforms will still be there 100+ years   
   from now, but that's because they'll be replaced for other reasons, just   
   like we rip up perfectly good highways every few decades because we need   
   to widen them.   
      
   >>> Spoken like someone who has never been through a winter with very   
   >>> heavy snowfall.   
   >>   
   >> If you build the platforms right, it doesn't matter how high they   
   >> are; heavy snow on a high platform is the same as heavy snow on a   
   >> high one.   
   >   
   > Right. The longer platform requires more shoveling. That's higher   
   > operating cost right there.   
      
   If they're using a shovel, you're doing it wrong.   
      
   We do have maintenance folks who run motorized plows and salt spreaders   
   around, but most of the labor cost goes to transportation from one   
   station to the next; they only spend a few minutes on each platform, so   
   even doubling the length of those platforms has negligible cost.   
      
   >>> (I wish you'd speak of engine and train crews, as they are   
   >>> separate crews and not the same crew.)   
   >>   
   >> There is an engineer, who runs the train, and a conductor, who   
   >> collects a paycheck for doing nothing, thanks to FRA/union rules.   
   >   
   > This is totally false. Conductors aren't featherbedding like two-man   
   > engine crews, with the second man the fireman on the diesel   
   > locomotive.   
      
   Requiring railroads to pay someone union wages for doing nothing but   
   reading the newspaper every day sounds like featherbedding to me.   
      
   > Technically, the conductor runs the train, and if the engineer does   
   > something wrong, the conductor can get fired too.   
      
   Technically, yes, but the only reason he's there in the first place is   
   antiquated FRA/union rules.  And it seems silly to fire a guy whose only   
   job duty is reading a newspaper when some other guy, who actually has   
   real job duties, screws up.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)